+ Register

[Xander]

A fun test question.  Let's pretend that one of the systems/methods/strategies on the board has an edge

The player has a 6% edge, and plans on playing off and on over a period of several days for a total of 10k spins.   (I don't care about or want to know how the edge is obtained, and who's method it is.  This is not a debate about whether a system works or not.)

  The player's starting bankroll is $1,000.  Which player will likely win the most money, and receive the most attention in the form of sex and love from his/her spouse or friend.  Player 1,2, or 3?


1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.

2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers?  (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)

3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?

Number one, two, or three?

[Gizmotron]

I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?


If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?


I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.

[Xander]

I've got a better idea. Let's pretend that you don't have an advantage. Now, for the sake of argument, can any player, playing even chance bets, win more than they lose at some point early in any session?


If you agree that is's possible to be ahead a few wins, then can that same person let the house's money, and only the house's money, ride for two more winning attempts, just to see if the player can win a little more, without any risk to that player's original bankroll on these attempts?


I don't think the triggerNazi union will like this much, but some of us in the gambling world just might really like it. I do. Course you always run the risk that there are people here and there that will label you defective in some cliched style. Byut the best thing to do about them is to ignore them.

Gizmo,

It's this simple.  If you don't have an edge, then you CAN'T win in the long run.

[soxfan]

Gizmo,

It's this simple.  If you don't have an edge, then you CAN'T win in the long run.

\

So, are you gonna define "long run", hey hey?

[Xander]

\

So, are you gonna define "long run", hey hey?

Think of the long run as being the point where you're luck won't be enough to win and you're results match the long term expectation.

What you really want to know is at what point you're destined to become a permanent loser.  That point in time comes much sooner than the long run.   Generally that point is where a five standard deviation win is no longer enough to overcome the house edge when flat betting.  Like it or not, if you can't improve the accuracy of your predictions, then that little house edge will eventually wipe you out, regardless of your progression.

[owenslv]

It seems very clear to me that the amount of time a player spends playing a single session of baccarat is a drop in the ocean of long term probability. This would suggest that over a short period, (one shoe or less), the Law of Small Numbers reigns supreme which means that in terms of probability, ANYTHING can happen - and likely will.

That, of course leads to negative expectancy which can only be beaten, as Xander so wisely explained it, by improving betting selections.

Anything we, as an intelligent, informed and experienced group of professional can do to increase our betting decision proficiency would assist all of us dramatically.

Q.E.D.

[Gizmotron]

Just look at the title of this thread:"Up as you lose, flat betting, up as you win. Which is best?"
This will be difficult for math oriented absolutists to stomach but the answer is in the second half of the title. Just consider that most people stop when they have depleted all or as much as they can stand of their bankrolls. They play to lose. What bothers math oriented players is that they won't admit that a few players play to win. It's inconceivable that a player can be  ahead in an even chance game and that reaching a realistic point they would end the session while they are up. In other words, up as you win.


Ever seen a candlestick chart for a stock trading graph? Did you know that when you graph an even chance gambling game you get the same kind of candlestick track. Now the game can follow the expectation required by statistical dogma. It almost always tracks in a general downward angle. But there are moments while doing so that track upward while still going down in general. Those moments are identifiable to a very smart person like myself. Just because I chose to see them and exploit them does not make them disappear for people that chose to deny their existence. And this is the critical part of the point being made. Just because a person denies the existence of these upward steps in the win loss outcomes, it does not make them not exist. So we come to the reason I point this out. Math oriented neo-experts are trying to impress others with subjective arguments. I said that just to hook the ego's of those that have and will continue to mislead others. I expect them to offer no answer to my observation of them other than cliche and ridicule. It comes with the territory on gambling forums. They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.

[Mike]

1. The player flat bets $50 every spin on the top numbers.

2. The player bets 1% of his bankroll distributed over his best numbers?  (His initial bet is only $10 in total.)

3. A player that runs an aggressive up as you lose betting progression 5,10,20,40,80,100,200?

Number one, two, or three?

My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.

[Mike]

They refuse to admit that a quit while you are ahead player can win long term. Yet we see this by day traders and swing traders every day in the stock market. Funny how they did not get the memo.

Gizmo,

We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.

And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons  why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.

[Gizmotron]

Gizmo,

We got the memo alright, in fact we're sick of getting it, we just think it's nonsense. Here's the thing about hit & run. In order for it to work, you have to know when to hit and when to run. In other words, there have to be genuine opportunities. But in a game like roulette (or baccarat), there are none because previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely.

And your analogy with trading is misplaced. Stock prices CAN follow definite trends because of the herd mentality. There are psychological reasons  why following a trend is often a good bet, but obviously these factors don't exist in roulette because it's just a ball and a wheel.

OK, I get that you and your "we" crowd are tired of all this. But now you are selling more snake oil with "hit & run" is actually "quit while you are ahead." Is that really true?


So let's look closer at this thing you keep trying to pawn off on the rest of us. This: "previous outcomes don't influence future outcomes and all patterns are equally likely." It's amazing to me that all you guys in your "cult" keep standing on this simple to understand axiom. Of course past spins don't cause random opportunities to occur. Any simpleton should know that. So why is it that you guys never get that memo? Is it because you need an excuse to close your minds or to keep them closed? Is it some kind of safe place? Is it the argument that you think you can always win and that shuts down debate? I think it is some kind of Kryptonite for you guys instead.  The sky is blue. Anyone that argues differently will be subject to one more of our boring lectures.


What about patterns being equally likely? Well at least we, we in our culture here, we thank you for now admitting that your team admits the existence of patterns. What about killer diller, long lasting, perfect patterns? Are they ever "likely?" I love the fact that all of this posturing implies that you would ignore a blatantly amazing opportunity, just to satisfy your position as a well informed person in our community.


Your implication that micro swings in candlestick charts happens because of trading activity, manipulations by trading activity, and by herd mentality all suggest that a cause must occur before you can speculate on swing changes. Why does there have to be a cause? It's just you suggesting that there is a cause that suggests success if anticipated, but never for Roulette. Is that actually logical? The charts go up and down in micro pulsations while having over all movements that indicate longer over all generalized changes. Who cares if they are the cause or effect of outside forces? They still move. Is my use of similar movements somehow negated just because you say there must be a cause? I'm telling you that there is not any cause whatsoever. Now please remember that the next time you spread your dogma all over the carpet.

[owenslv]

Great discussion gentlemen. So in keeping with the sprit of the thread. I would like to propose another fun question. Let's assume you have an adequate bankroll, decided upon a reasonable stop loss and you are now at the the baccarat table.
My "fun" question what is the best way to select your next bet:

1. Use past results as the basis of your decision ?

2. Utilize a math algorithm to predict the next bet ?

3. Follow your intuition ?

4. Use combination of the above ?

5. Other ?

What is is, what is not, is not.

[Gizmotron]

1. Use past results as the basis of your decision.


I use past results because it is the only way to know how the session is going. It is the only way to know when enough is enough, in any case.

[Xander]

My vote goes to 2, followed by 1, and lastly (least effective) would be 3.

Mike,

I'm not surprised that you knew the answer.

Player one very likely went broke.  A bankroll of only 1k would have been insufficient.  If his bankroll was in the neighborhood of 15 to 20k and  If he did survive the fluctuations of variance then the player would have won about 30k

Player three very likely would have gone bust as well.  The garish progression would have required a bankroll in the neighborhood of 60 to 70k.   A 1k bankroll would have been utterly insufficient.  Had the player been successful he could have won around 137k.

Player two is the real winner. Using a realistic bankroll of only 1k the player would have won around 403k

[owenslv]

Thanks Giz, You're first ! I appreciate the prompt (and honest) reply.

So, using Xander's idea of 1% of bankroll and your confirmation of utilizing past results, we're making process.

So before we create the ultimate "BETSELECTION" Baccarat strategy, I think it wise to hear from more players.

What do you say team?

So, how best to use the past results for that 1% initial bet........

[Gizmotron]

My 2 cents on how much of your bankroll you should risk.


You should take the full amount you are willing to risk and cut it into 5 parts.


You then take one of those one-fifth parts to the casino.


For each session you can use a one-fifth part if you want to adjust the above.


You then make bets that are either the minimum allowed or one-tenth of the one-fifth that you brought to the session, if the table limits allow. So you have ten tries at the high level to make your goal, hopefully quickly. The minimum bets are used to create a real-results data stream from.


A smart player would end the session at 30% of a session's bankroll up, if they do well. A smart player would know if a session was difficult and end it before using the entire one-fifth session bankroll up. It's possible to fight to get back to near even before quitting. This MM tactic is about dealing with randomness, that can never be controlled, only reacted to. You can see what you are getting in your active session even though others here say that you can't. It is far more likely that it is just they that can't see what they are getting. So they soft sell you that as some kind of soap salesman. You must figure it out for yourself. Leave the plantation of your mind. Take the red pill Neo, and move into the world of the real.

BTW: 10% of 20% is 2%. That's 2% of your entire money risked on one single high-level bet. Not that far from 1%.